16:52:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:52:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc
16:52:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
16:52:15 <npdoty> Zakim, this will be 87225
16:52:16 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
16:52:27 <npdoty> chair: schunter
16:53:03 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:53:10 <Zakim> +??P15
16:53:21 <dsinger> zakim, ??P15 is me
16:53:21 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:53:36 <dsinger> zakim, mute me
16:53:36 <Zakim> sorry, dsinger, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
16:53:47 <dsinger> zakim, you are a dumb cluck
16:53:47 <Zakim> I don't understand 'you are a dumb cluck', dsinger
16:54:14 <dsinger> zakim, I have replaced you with a local mute
16:54:14 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I have replaced you with a local mute', dsinger
16:55:02 <aleecia> :-)
16:55:15 <Zakim> +??P18
16:55:16 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:55:29 <BrendanIAB> BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
16:55:31 <schunter> Zakim, ??P18 is schunter
16:55:31 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:55:50 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:55:53 <npdoty> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0042.html
16:56:13 <rigo> zakim, mute me
16:56:13 <Zakim> Rigo should now be muted
16:56:29 <npdoty> if you're alone in the woods, can a teleconference system mute you?
16:56:38 <aleecia> Zakim, agenda?
16:56:38 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
16:57:00 <aleecia> Nick, you've got this?
16:57:18 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda+ scribe selection
16:57:19 <Zakim> agendum 1 added
16:57:35 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda+ overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
16:57:35 <Zakim> agendum 2 added
16:57:47 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda+ callers identified
16:57:47 <Zakim> agendum 3 added
16:57:49 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
16:58:14 <ninjamarnau> ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:58:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:58:16 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
16:58:20 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda+ new approach to exceptions
16:58:20 <Zakim> agendum 4 added
16:58:23 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:58:26 <Zakim> + +1.202.478.aaaa
16:58:30 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda+ How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?
16:58:30 <Zakim> agendum 5 added
16:58:33 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:58:33 <rigo> ack ri
16:58:37 <BrendanIAB> Zakim, IPcaller.a is probably me
16:58:37 <Zakim> +BrendanIAB?; got it
16:58:38 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:58:39 <rachel_thomas> rachel_thomas has joined #dnt
16:58:43 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda+ ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory?
16:58:43 <Zakim> agendum 6 added
16:58:46 <rigo> zakim, mute me
16:58:46 <Zakim> Rigo should now be muted
16:58:52 <Zakim> + +1.212.380.aabb
16:58:57 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda+ ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between
16:58:57 <Zakim> agendum 7 added
16:58:57 <npdoty> first party (1) and outsourcing service provider
16:58:58 <schunter> Zakim, mute me
16:58:58 <Zakim> schunter should now be muted
16:58:59 <Zakim> + +1.408.260.aacc
16:59:04 <moneill2> zakim, a is me
16:59:04 <Zakim> sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named 'a'
16:59:05 <rigo> zakim, mute schunter
16:59:06 <Zakim> schunter was already muted, rigo
16:59:08 <sidstamm> Zakim, aacc is sidstamm
16:59:08 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
16:59:08 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda+ Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs:
16:59:09 <Zakim> agendum 8 added
16:59:11 <Zakim> + +49.431.98.aadd
16:59:13 <Chris_IAB> just joined from the 212 area code
16:59:18 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
16:59:21 <ninjamarnau> zakim, aadd is ninjamarnau
16:59:21 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau; got it
16:59:21 <rigo> zakim, aadd is Ninja
16:59:23 <Zakim> sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
16:59:23 <Zakim> + +1.813.366.aaee
16:59:28 <Zakim> + +1.646.801.aaff
16:59:30 <npdoty> Zakim, aabb is Chris_IAB
16:59:30 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB; got it
16:59:39 <dwainberg> zakim, aaff is dwainberg
16:59:39 <Zakim> +dwainberg; got it
17:00:02 <Zakim> + +1.510.859.aagg
17:00:05 <moneill2> zakim, [IPcaller].a is me
17:00:05 <Zakim> sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller].a'
17:00:08 <schunter> Zakim, who is online
17:00:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is online', schunter
17:00:13 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:00:18 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
17:00:18 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
17:00:21 <Chris_IAB> start horn just signaled!
17:00:25 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
17:00:27 <Zakim> +[Google]
17:00:29 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:00:34 <Zakim> +jchester2
17:00:37 <dsinger> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:00:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, schunter (muted), Rigo (muted), BrendanIAB?, +1.202.478.aaaa, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, +1.813.366.aaee, dwainberg, +1.510.859.aagg, [Google],
17:00:40 <Zakim> ... jchester2
17:00:44 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
17:00:44 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
17:00:55 <Zakim> +??P10
17:01:10 <npdoty> Zakim, aaee is eberkower
17:01:10 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
17:01:15 <ifette> ifette has joined #dnt
17:01:16 <npdoty> Zakim, aagg is npdoty
17:01:16 <Zakim> +npdoty; got it
17:01:27 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
17:01:32 <ifette> zakim, google has ifette
17:01:32 <Zakim> +ifette; got it
17:01:35 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
17:01:35 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
17:01:38 <Zakim> +Thomas
17:01:56 <Zakim> + +1.212.768.aahh
17:01:56 <Chris_IAB> 202 is DC
17:02:01 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
17:02:09 <suegl> suegl has joined #dnt
17:02:12 <Zakim> + +1.408.349.aaii
17:02:14 <tlr> zakim, I am thomas
17:02:14 <Zakim> ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
17:02:16 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:02:16 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:02:22 <Chris_IAB> 202 Could be Rachel from DMA?
17:02:23 <WileyS> Zakim, aaii is WileyS
17:02:23 <Zakim> +WileyS; got it
17:02:25 <Zakim> + +1.813.366.aajj
17:02:27 <Chris_IAB> I'm 212
17:02:34 <WileyS> I'm 408
17:02:36 <Zakim> + +1.916.641.aakk
17:02:41 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
17:02:42 <Zakim> + +1.425.269.aall
17:02:43 <npdoty> Zakim, aaaa is rachel_thomas
17:02:43 <Zakim> +rachel_thomas; got it
17:02:46 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:02:55 <Walter> Zakim: IPcaller is Walter
17:02:56 <npdoty> Zakim, aahh is lmastria
17:02:56 <Zakim> +lmastria; got it
17:02:56 <suegl> zakim, suegl is aall
17:02:57 <Zakim> sorry, suegl, I do not recognize a party named 'suegl'
17:03:00 <Joanne> Zakim, aakk is Joanne
17:03:00 <Zakim> +Joanne; got it
17:03:05 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Mayer
17:03:06 <bryan> bryan has joined #dnt
17:03:07 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:07 <moneill2> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:03:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, schunter (muted), Rigo (muted), BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, eberkower, dwainberg, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted),
17:03:08 <Zakim> ... ??P10, Thomas (muted), lmastria, WileyS, +1.813.366.aajj, Joanne, +1.425.269.aall, [IPcaller], Jonathan_Mayer
17:03:08 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:03:08 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
17:03:12 <suegl> zakim, aall is suegl
17:03:13 <Zakim> +suegl; got it
17:03:14 <Walter> Zakim, IPcaller is Walter
17:03:14 <Zakim> sorry, Walter, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
17:03:20 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
17:03:21 <hefferjr> Zakim, aajj is hefferjr
17:03:21 <Zakim> +hefferjr; got it
17:03:32 <aleecia> Regrets+ tl, aleecia
17:03:38 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, schunter (muted), Rigo (muted), BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, eberkower, dwainberg, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted),
17:03:41 <Zakim> ... ??P10, Thomas (muted), lmastria, WileyS, hefferjr, Joanne, suegl, moneill2, Jonathan_Mayer
17:03:41 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:03:43 <Walter> I'm on Skype
17:03:47 <Zakim> + +1.949.573.aamm
17:03:58 <fielding> zakim, aamm is fielding
17:03:58 <Zakim> +fielding; got it
17:04:05 <Walter> I told Zakim so
17:04:08 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aann
17:04:08 <tlr> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:04:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, schunter (muted), Rigo (muted), BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, eberkower, dwainberg, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted),
17:04:09 <Zakim> ... ??P10, Thomas (muted), lmastria, WileyS, hefferjr, Joanne, suegl, moneill2, Jonathan_Mayer, fielding, +1.917.934.aann
17:04:09 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:04:11 <Walter> but he didn't recognise that
17:04:13 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P10 is probably Walter
17:04:14 <Zakim> +Walter?; got it
17:04:17 <Walter> Zakim, IPcaller is Walter
17:04:20 <vinay> zakim, aann is vinay
17:04:20 <Zakim> sorry, Walter, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
17:04:20 <Zakim> +vinay; got it
17:04:31 <npdoty> schunter, ready whenever you are
17:04:40 <Walter> Zakim, Walter? is Walter
17:04:40 <Zakim> +Walter; got it
17:04:50 <schunter> Zakim still has punching-card-like command syntax. Lucky enough that the column does not matter.
17:05:08 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda?
17:05:08 <Zakim> I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
17:05:09 <Zakim> 1. scribe selection [from npdoty]
17:05:09 <Zakim> 2. overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from npdoty]
17:05:09 <Zakim> 3. callers identified [from npdoty]
17:05:09 <Zakim> 4. new approach to exceptions [from npdoty]
17:05:09 <Zakim> 5. How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)? [from npdoty]
17:05:09 <Zakim> 6. ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory? [from npdoty]
17:05:10 <Zakim> 7. ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between [from npdoty]
17:05:11 <Zakim> 8. Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs: [from npdoty]
17:05:35 <npdoty> schunter: after a little bit of time, back to the TPE document again, hope you all remember it
17:05:36 <Zakim> + +1.678.580.aaoo
17:05:41 <dsriedel> dsriedel has joined #dnt
17:05:49 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
17:05:50 <Zakim> + +1.425.214.aapp
17:05:50 <npdoty> ... goal is to look at all the open issues, make progress, assign actions
17:06:02 <npdoty> ... selection of a scribe? volunteers?
17:06:12 <bryan> zakim, aapp is bryan
17:06:12 <Zakim> +bryan; got it
17:06:13 <Brooks> 678 is Brooks
17:06:17 <tlr> zakim, aaoo is brooks
17:06:17 <Zakim> +brooks; got it
17:06:29 <rigo> zakim, pick a victim
17:06:29 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ninjamarnau
17:06:33 <Zakim> + +49.721.83.aaqq
17:06:41 <dsriedel> zakim, aaqq is me
17:06:41 <Zakim> +dsriedel; got it
17:06:49 <rigo> ack ri
17:06:50 <npdoty> scribenick: ninjamarnau
17:06:58 <dsriedel> zakim, mute me
17:06:58 <Zakim> dsriedel should now be muted
17:06:59 <bryan> present+ Bryan_Sullivan
17:07:20 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 2
17:07:20 <Zakim> agendum 2. "overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner" taken up [from npdoty]
17:07:23 <moneill2> zakim, mute me
17:07:23 <Zakim> moneill2 should now be muted
17:07:28 <rigo> zakim, aaqq is dsriedel
17:07:28 <Zakim> sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aaqq'
17:07:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:07:57 <rigo> zakim, who is here?
17:07:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, schunter, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, sidstamm, ninjamarnau, eberkower, dwainberg, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted), Walter, Thomas
17:07:59 <vincent> zakim [IPcaller] is vincent
17:08:00 <Zakim> ... (muted), lmastria, WileyS, hefferjr, Joanne, suegl, moneill2 (muted), Jonathan_Mayer, fielding, vinay, brooks, bryan, dsriedel (muted), [IPcaller]
17:08:00 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:08:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see Brooks, dsriedel, jmayer, bryan, hefferjr, suegl, fielding, eberkower, ifette, vincent, vinay, jchester2, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, WileyS, ninjamarnau,
17:08:00 <Zakim> ... Joanne, BrendanIAB, sidstamm, Zakim, RRSAgent, npdoty, dsinger
17:08:08 <npdoty> justin has 4 actions, so we had better follow up with him offline
17:08:11 <vincent> zakim, [IPcaller] is vincent
17:08:11 <Zakim> +vincent; got it
17:08:21 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Justin not on the call, I note it down, skpi his actions
17:08:26 <npdoty> amyc or others from Microsoft?
17:08:32 <ninjamarnau> ... amyc on the call?
17:08:48 <npdoty> action-131?
17:08:48 <trackbot> ACTION-131 -- Roy Fielding to sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource -- due 2012-11-03 -- OPEN
17:08:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/131
17:08:56 <ninjamarnau> ... ACTION 131 by roy:
17:09:17 <Zakim> + +385345aarr
17:09:33 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
17:09:34 <npdoty> this is attached to an issue that we have already closed
17:09:36 <npdoty> issue-124?
17:09:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-124 -- How shall we express responses from a site to a user agent (headers, URIs, ...)? -- closed
17:09:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/124
17:09:42 <Zakim> +hwest
17:10:04 <ninjamarnau> fielding: suggest postponing until we have status tracking resources
17:10:22 <Walter> who is talking now?
17:11:17 <ninjamarnau> fielding: push it back 2 weeks
17:11:25 <npdoty> fielding, you're saying the spec should explain how a UA should make tracking status resource requests in a variety of cases
17:11:26 <rigo> no tom
17:11:37 <tlr> action-131 due 2012-11-21
17:11:37 <trackbot> ACTION-131 Sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource due date now 2012-11-21
17:11:41 <fielding> sorry for any background noise -- I am in Atlanta at the IETF meeting
17:11:56 <tlr> action-276?
17:11:56 <trackbot> ACTION-276 -- Luigi Mastria to provide text regarding data retention, applicable to finanical logging data -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
17:11:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/276
17:12:04 <ninjamarnau> schunter: ACTION 276 on lou?
17:12:48 <rigo> q+
17:12:49 <Zakim> + +1.646.666.aass
17:12:53 <tlr> action-276 due 2012-11-21
17:12:53 <trackbot> ACTION-276 Provide text regarding data retention, applicable to finanical logging data due date now 2012-11-21
17:12:56 <npdoty> q+
17:12:56 <tlr> q?
17:13:00 <ninjamarnau> Luigi Mastria: I think it makes sense to push it couple of weeks
17:13:03 <jmayer> Is there any actual deadline for ISSUEs?
17:13:04 <rigo> ack ri
17:13:08 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
17:13:29 <jmayer> If a participant fails to complete a pending action for a month, they get a free two week extension?
17:13:54 <aleecia> Seeing only irc: issues ought to be closed if they are not getting work
17:14:13 <aleecia> Excuse me, *actions* not issues
17:14:28 <Walter> or at least pick up the beer tab at the next F2F
17:15:14 <aleecia> Issues do not have deadlines with them at present. But f2f AMS actions should just close if they do not have text now
17:15:15 <ninjamarnau> rigo: I have been on a meeting with the German toll collect. They presented retention classes. This could perhaps inspire Luigi
17:15:38 <npdoty> rigo, are you volunteering to propose some text as well?
17:15:50 <ninjamarnau> Luigi Mastria: appriciate the feedback. Will keep this in mind
17:15:55 <npdoty> q?
17:16:02 <rigo> do retention classes instead of doing precise retention dates for financial data
17:16:03 <Walter> but I agree with aleecia and jmayer, this taking extremely long
17:16:08 <aleecia> Last week we delayed for NY having power outages. We are past time
17:16:42 <Walter> true
17:17:54 <tlr> action-273?
17:17:54 <trackbot> ACTION-273 -- Rob Sherman to propose text regarding multiple first parties -- due 2012-11-02 -- OPEN
17:17:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/273
17:17:56 <npdoty> npdoty: is this something we can pull from the DAA text? can others help you with this action from last month?
17:18:05 <rigo> ack ri
17:18:11 <Zakim> - +385345aarr
17:18:14 <tlr> action-273?
17:18:14 <trackbot> ACTION-273 -- Rob Sherman to propose text regarding multiple first parties -- due 2012-11-02 -- OPEN
17:18:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/273
17:18:15 <rigo> ack ri
17:18:15 <ninjamarnau> schunter: 273 on Rob Sherman. Does not lokk like it.
17:18:23 <WileyS> Aleeca, rather than arbitrarily closing the issues, could we please put a due date on them and ask for volunteers to take over where others have not met their due date?
17:18:26 <tlr> ack thomas
17:18:29 <ninjamarnau> rigo: I volunteer to take this ACTION up.
17:18:30 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
17:18:30 <tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0075.html
17:18:32 <dsinger> notes that there have been emails on the list on this subject
17:18:52 <npdoty> lmastria: not that simple, DAA program is a coherent whole in use in the US/EU/Canada, in current discussion but needs more time
17:18:59 <npdoty> q-
17:19:16 <ninjamarnau> rigo: text is ideal. We need to be contructive.
17:19:29 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Will set the action to pending review.
17:19:33 <aleecia> Until we have text proposals for adoption, we're just gossiping. We need actual text we can adopt
17:19:35 <rigo> s/text is ideal/text is not ideal/
17:19:36 <Zakim> + +1.310.392.aatt
17:19:36 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:19:37 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:20:13 <johnsimpson> zakim, 310 392 aatt is johnsimpson
17:20:13 <Zakim> I don't understand '310 392 aatt is johnsimpson', johnsimpson
17:20:17 <ninjamarnau> rigo, could you exchange ideal to not ideal?
17:20:21 <tlr> zakim, aatt is johnsimpson
17:20:21 <Zakim> +johnsimpson; got it
17:20:21 <npdoty> q+
17:20:24 <WileyS> Aleecia, not sure what you mean by "gossiping" - simply requesting due dates, solid owners, opportunity to reassign if someone else in the working group feels its critical to their business/perspective
17:20:26 <fielding> already did that
17:20:30 <Walter> does a closed action mean that it can no longer be discusses?
17:20:31 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
17:20:33 <Walter> eh, discussed
17:20:40 <tlr> Walter, closing an action simply means that the action has been done.
17:20:46 <Walter> ok, thank you
17:20:50 <tlr> action = promise by somebody to do something by a certain date
17:20:50 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find =. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.
17:20:56 <aleecia> And again, apologies I cannot join the call today by voice
17:21:02 <ninjamarnau> dsinger: suggest to leave the definition ACTION open.
17:21:03 <rigo> ninja, I did already
17:21:06 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:21:11 <tlr> ack thomas
17:21:16 <npdoty> q?
17:21:19 <tlr> action-268?
17:21:19 <trackbot> ACTION-268 -- David Singer to edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications -- due 2012-10-10 -- CLOSED
17:21:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/268
17:21:23 <tlr> action-268 closed
17:21:23 <trackbot> ACTION-268 Edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications closed
17:21:25 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:21:25 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:21:33 <ninjamarnau> schunter: We will close 268 until we discover new inconsistencies
17:22:10 <ninjamarnau> npdoty: We need to make some changes. At least for 1st and 3rd
17:22:21 <Zakim> +dwainberg
17:22:30 <tlr> action-268 reopened
17:22:36 <tlr> trackbot, reopen action-268
17:22:36 <trackbot> ACTION-268 Edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications re-opened
17:22:37 <dsinger> TPE says "A companion document, [TRACKING-COMPLIANCE], defines many of the terms used here, notably 'party', 'first party', and 'third party'.
17:22:38 <dsinger> "
17:23:44 <Zakim> -hwest
17:23:58 <Zakim> +hwest
17:24:01 <rigo> I still think all lawyers in the room of at least 2 F2F meetings were telling leave "party" to the legal system and take whatever the legal system accepts as a party
17:24:04 <npdoty> fielding: I know what is implementable regarding parties, if the compliance spec is not consistent then it needs to be changed, but should clarify on the mailing list rather than an action for the editors
17:24:20 <ninjamarnau> schunter: we do not have inconsistencies. But we have no machine implementable way to distinguish between first and third parties
17:24:28 <fielding> My issue is that the server cannot promise that it is the first party when it cannot know it is the first party. It can only promise how it was implemented.
17:24:43 <tlr> action-268 due next week
17:24:43 <trackbot> ACTION-268 Edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications due date now next week
17:24:57 <npdoty> dsinger, can we add notes to this action so we don't forget how to work on it?
17:24:57 <ninjamarnau> ... it is not the definition itself but the implementability. It is not Rob's job to solve that
17:25:06 <dsinger> I just did a small one.
17:25:16 <schunter> q?
17:25:21 <schunter> ack npdoty
17:25:22 <npdoty> q-
17:25:31 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:25:43 <Zakim> + +1.609.310.aauu
17:25:44 <ninjamarnau> schunter: ACTION 249
17:25:49 <efelten_> Zakim aauu is me.
17:25:59 <npdoty> Zakim, aauu is efelten_
17:25:59 <Zakim> +efelten_; got it
17:26:16 <tlr> action-249?
17:26:16 <trackbot> ACTION-249 -- David Singer to ensure that the qualifiers reflect the permissions documented in the compliance document, due 10 october -- due 2012-10-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:26:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/249
17:26:23 <Zakim> +??P27
17:26:39 <Walter> Zakim, ??P27 is Walter
17:26:40 <Zakim> +Walter; got it
17:26:51 <npdoty> sounds good to me
17:27:00 <npdoty> q+
17:27:00 <ninjamarnau> ... suggest to put the current status of qualifiers in the spec and review it later.
17:27:04 <rigo> q+
17:27:15 <jmayer> q+
17:27:34 <npdoty> q?
17:27:48 <ninjamarnau> dsinger: it is open if qualifiers are otional, mandataory, permitted.
17:27:58 <npdoty> q?
17:28:03 <tlr> ack npdoty
17:28:06 <schunter> q?
17:28:10 <schunter> ack rigo
17:28:24 <ninjamarnau> schunter: To answer Ian Fette, In Amsterdam we decided to have permitted qualifiers
17:28:31 <tlr> npdoty: We made a decision in Seattle that we would have qualifiers, and that they would be optional.
17:28:43 <schunter> q?
17:28:44 <ninjamarnau> npdoty: In Seattle decision were made that qualifiers are optional.
17:28:47 <fielding> and that they would only be in the representation.
17:29:18 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:29:23 <tlr> rigo: This is only about the response?
17:29:23 <rigo> ack ri
17:29:25 <tlr> npdoty: correct
17:29:29 <rigo> ok
17:29:59 <npdoty> schunter: permitted in the uri, or also in the header? dsinger: both places
17:30:00 <schunter> q?
17:30:04 <schunter> ack jmayer
17:30:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:30:52 <Zakim> -sidstamm
17:31:04 <npdoty> jmayer: qualifiers that reflect the permitted uses would be optional; are there some qualifiers beyond that?
17:31:17 <rigo> interesting question: What do we do with syntax violations
17:31:23 <ninjamarnau> jmayer: my understanding in Seattle was that we had a consensus. Are you suggesting qualifiers for more than the permitted uses? I do not think we have consensus on that
17:31:50 <npdoty> jmayer, you're suggesting a sort of extensibility mechanism? I wouldn't object to additional non-conflicting characters that UAs could ignore
17:31:56 <fielding> I think the only qualifier we had consensus on was to remove "l" for local
17:32:12 <npdoty> does anyone have a use case for extensibility regarding qualifiers?
17:32:14 <ninjamarnau> schunter: my understanding is that the TPE spec allows only for optional qualifiers for the permitted uses. Other would violate the Compliance spec.
17:32:23 <schunter> q?
17:32:28 <rigo> fielding: do we have a rule for syntax violations?
17:32:32 <ninjamarnau> ... dsinger got an action to synch both.
17:32:46 <tlr> action-317?
17:32:46 <trackbot> ACTION-317 -- David Singer to draft non-normative examples on same-party (issue-164) -- due 2012-10-12 -- OPEN
17:32:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/317
17:32:49 <ifette> Is someone recording and/or putting hte call on hold?
17:32:49 <Walter> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:32:50 <Chris_IAB> new noise on the call = beeping
17:32:52 <ifette> there's a beeping noise
17:32:59 <npdoty> so dsinger is going to update the TPE draft with those updated qualifiers, and point to the synchronization issue as they may change again
17:33:00 <Zakim> Walter, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: brooks (59%), dsinger (59%), schunter (30%)
17:33:02 <Zakim> +??P9
17:33:14 <jmayer> So, to clarify, the qualifiers are *only* for the permitted uses provided in the Compliance document. A website cannot unilaterally declare a new qualifier (e.g. "ICANHAZTRACKING").
17:33:17 <Brooks> I am on mute
17:33:22 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
17:33:24 <tlr> ack thomas
17:33:35 <ninjamarnau> schunter: I push it by a week. dsinger sent it by email but it got lost.
17:33:42 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:33:42 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:34:06 <rigo> zakim, who is muted?
17:34:06 <Zakim> I see jchester2, Thomas, dsriedel muted
17:34:08 <ninjamarnau> ... dsinger should feel free to send it to the list.
17:34:15 <johnsimpson> q?
17:34:26 <fielding> jmayer, the qualifiers are for the sole purpose of explaining what tracking is done within the scope of the TSV … David has suggested some changes to that purpose
17:34:57 <npdoty> action-287?
17:34:57 <trackbot> ACTION-287 -- Rachel Thomas to define "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two documents. -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
17:34:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/287
17:35:00 <tlr> action-270?
17:35:00 <trackbot> ACTION-270 -- Rachel Thomas to propose existing DAA text for service providers -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
17:35:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/270
17:35:00 <npdoty> action-270?
17:35:00 <trackbot> ACTION-270 -- Rachel Thomas to propose existing DAA text for service providers -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
17:35:01 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/270
17:35:03 <ninjamarnau> schunter: 2 ACTIONS on rachel_thomas
17:35:25 <npdoty> can someone drop a link to rachel's email?
17:35:33 <tlr> http://www.w3.org/mid/F7D4F7192203374D9821E66FADA2F10804B8CF9179@dma-ny-exch01.inside.the-dma.org
17:35:34 <ninjamarnau> rachel_thomas: I would like to have it noted in the records. There was lot of text on definitions on the list.
17:35:45 <tlr> and the subject had "ACTION 207", without a dash :)
17:35:51 <dwainberg> zakim, IPCaller is dwainberg
17:35:51 <Zakim> +dwainberg; got it
17:35:59 <tlr> ack thomas
17:36:00 <tlr> q+
17:36:10 <ninjamarnau> schunter: I or npdoty will link the information and set the actions to pending review.
17:36:20 <jchester2> Clarification for Rachel:  Is this a formal request by the DAA to have its definition considered, or just the DMA?
17:36:23 <tlr> action-287?
17:36:23 <trackbot> ACTION-287 -- Rachel Thomas to define "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two documents. -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
17:36:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/287
17:36:34 <Walter> q+
17:36:35 <jchester2> +q
17:36:41 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me
17:36:41 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
17:36:43 <ninjamarnau> rachel_thomas: On user expectation. I do not think I am the right person to work on this action.
17:36:57 <npdoty> q?
17:37:02 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Then I will close this action 287.
17:37:24 <dwainberg> That should be left open.
17:37:28 <Walter> +1
17:37:46 <johnsimpson> q?
17:37:47 <schunter> q?
17:38:09 <BrendanIAB> q+
17:38:09 <ninjamarnau> johnsimpson: Is this DAA text?
17:38:26 <Lmastria> Lmastria has joined #dnt
17:38:36 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
17:38:36 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
17:38:40 <npdoty> q- jchester later
17:38:44 <npdoty> q+ jchester
17:38:45 <johnsimpson> no that was jeff chester, not me
17:38:48 <schunter> q?
17:38:49 <npdoty> q- Thomas
17:38:51 <npdoty> q+ Thomas
17:38:54 <fielding> s/johnsimpson/jchester2/
17:39:10 <ninjamarnau> schunter: objections to close 287?
17:39:11 <jchester2> q-
17:39:23 <Walter> walter-
17:39:26 <tlr> q- walter
17:39:27 <Walter> q-
17:39:38 <npdoty> I had thought this was already assigned to BrendanIAB, but I guess I'm looking track of all out action items
17:39:41 <tlr> action-287?
17:39:41 <trackbot> ACTION-287 -- Brendan Riordan-Butterworth to define "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two documents. -- due 2012-11-14 -- OPEN
17:39:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/287
17:39:57 <tlr> ack brendan
17:39:57 <schunter> q?
17:40:07 <npdoty> BrendanIAB: can look into this as part of reviewing consistency, will take over this action, have something within a week
17:40:08 <tlr> ack thomas
17:40:11 <npdoty> action-270?
17:40:11 <trackbot> ACTION-270 -- Rachel Thomas to propose existing DAA text for service providers -- due 2012-10-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:40:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/270
17:40:13 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me
17:40:13 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
17:40:20 <ninjamarnau> schunter: remains open. Now ACTION on BrendanIAB
17:40:20 <jchester2> +q
17:40:33 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Back to ACTION 270
17:40:42 <fielding> regardless, the action is competed
17:40:58 <johnsimpson> suggest we close
17:41:03 <Walter> +1
17:41:05 <npdoty> "I think we will just withdraw this language as a potential replacement for what's in the spec today and see if we need to provide alternative text."
17:41:13 <ninjamarnau> tlr: The text that rachel_thomas proposed does not really fit. Does someone make another proposal? Or do we close it.
17:41:25 <npdoty> close action-270
17:41:25 <trackbot> ACTION-270 Propose existing DAA text for service providers closed
17:41:27 <tlr> action-270 closed
17:41:27 <trackbot> ACTION-270 Propose existing DAA text for service providers closed
17:41:28 <jchester2> -q
17:41:29 <ninjamarnau> rachel_thomas: I agree. We can close it.
17:41:33 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
17:41:33 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
17:41:58 <dsinger> q+ to ask an editor question
17:41:59 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:42:00 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:42:16 <jchester2> Rachel:  Could you clarify on the list.  Are your proposals formally submitted by the DMA or by you on behalf of the DMA?
17:42:33 <schunter> q?
17:42:33 <jchester2> Rachel:  Sorry I mean submitted by DAA.
17:42:36 <fielding> happy to drop my action if anyone else wants to write examples for TPE
17:42:39 <npdoty> schunter: encourage us to address actions promptly, so that we don't have so many overdue ones to go through
17:42:40 <npdoty> q?
17:42:43 <ninjamarnau> schunter: We should take ACTION more serious. I ask you to update them before they are overdue.
17:42:52 <schunter> q?
17:42:55 <npdoty> ack dsinger
17:42:55 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask an editor question
17:43:12 <tlr> ACTION-270: this text will not be integrated into the document
17:43:12 <trackbot> ACTION-270 Propose existing DAA text for service providers notes added
17:43:12 <schunter> 1. Send email to list
17:43:17 <Walter> Zakim, mute me
17:43:17 <Zakim> Walter should now be muted
17:43:37 <npdoty> dsinger: a lot of emails going by, when should the editors add the text to the documents?
17:43:41 <ninjamarnau> dsinger: Unsure when text on the mailing list is final and can be included by the editors. I expect explicit instruction by the chairs.
17:44:02 <npdoty> schunter: you're right, we should put an action on the editors to do so
17:44:11 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Once we decided on text we should but an action on the editors.
17:44:30 <tlr> ack thomas
17:44:42 <npdoty> rigo: up to the chairs to declare consensus, otherwise how would david know what to do?
17:44:54 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda?
17:44:54 <Zakim> I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
17:44:56 <Zakim> 1. scribe selection [from npdoty]
17:44:56 <Zakim> 2. overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from npdoty]
17:44:56 <Zakim> 3. callers identified [from npdoty]
17:44:56 <Zakim> 4. new approach to exceptions [from npdoty]
17:44:56 <Zakim> 5. How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)? [from npdoty]
17:44:56 <Zakim> 6. ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory? [from npdoty]
17:44:57 <Zakim> 7. ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between [from npdoty]
17:44:58 <Zakim> 8. Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs: [from npdoty]
17:45:00 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:45:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see dsinger, schunter, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, rachel_thomas, Chris_IAB, ninjamarnau, eberkower, npdoty, [Google], jchester2 (muted), Walter (muted), Thomas, lmastria,
17:45:03 <Zakim> ... WileyS, hefferjr, Joanne, suegl, Jonathan_Mayer, fielding, vinay, brooks, bryan, dsriedel (muted), vincent, +1.646.666.aass, johnsimpson, hwest, efelten_, Walter.a, dwainberg,
17:45:03 <Zakim> ... ??P9
17:45:03 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:45:13 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:45:13 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:45:14 <dwainberg> dwainberg has left #dnt
17:45:23 <ninjamarnau> schunter: quick check that all callers are identified.
17:45:26 <Chapell> 646 is chapell
17:45:29 <laurengelman> i am one
17:45:36 <tlr> zakim, aass is Chapell
17:45:36 <Zakim> +Chapell; got it
17:45:38 <laurengelman> i think i'm the VOIP
17:45:44 <tlr> zakim, ??P9 is laurengelman
17:45:44 <Zakim> +laurengelman; got it
17:45:49 <Chapell> thanks tlr
17:45:55 <Zakim> -Walter.a
17:45:57 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 4
17:45:57 <Zakim> agendum 4. "new approach to exceptions" taken up [from npdoty]
17:46:02 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
17:46:13 <npdoty> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0514.html
17:46:20 <Zakim> +??P27
17:46:26 <ninjamarnau> schunter: discussion on the new approach on decisions we presented in Amsterdam.
17:46:30 <Walter> Zakim, ??p27 is Walter
17:46:30 <Zakim> +Walter; got it
17:47:32 <ifette> Fair warning, I have a conflicting meeting in 13 minutes and will need to drop off
17:48:44 <ninjamarnau> ifette: UA should confirm exceptions with the user. The big change is on UAs to store exceptions
17:48:50 <jmayer> Off to class again, later all.
17:48:55 <WileyS> +q
17:48:56 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Mayer
17:49:15 <WileyS> Ian - is the Server notified if the user rejects the exception upon UA interaction?
17:49:20 <schunter> q?
17:49:22 <ifette> Shane, no.
17:49:31 <ifette> Because it's not considered "rejecting"
17:49:34 <ninjamarnau> ... if the UA has the option to implement notifications to the user about change of exception status
17:49:37 <ifette> it's considered deleting a previously granted exception
17:49:41 <tlr> ack w
17:49:42 <ifette> just like the user could delete an exception at any time
17:49:43 <schunter> ack WileyS
17:49:49 <ifette> q+
17:50:06 <ninjamarnau> WileyS: I think this is vital. But the server needs to know that it received an exception.
17:50:10 <dwainberg> q+
17:50:15 <npdoty> q+ new normative/non-normative requirements
17:50:32 <ifette> queue=ifette,dwainberg,npdoty
17:50:44 <schunter> q?
17:50:47 <ninjamarnau> ... We should think how this can be validated for the sites. This is a matter of synching.
17:50:53 <efelten_> Doesn't the server find out when it receives DNT:0 in the future?
17:50:54 <schunter> q?
17:50:58 <vincent> q+
17:51:05 <rigo> ed, exactly my question too
17:51:05 <dsinger> I think we made sure that there were ways to confirm the existence of an exception that the server thought had previously been granted; I agree
17:51:17 <ifette> ed, yes
17:51:28 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Do people prefer this approach in general?
17:51:32 <ifette> this is just a special case of the user revoking an exception at any random time
17:51:45 <fielding> efelten_, the third party would find out … it would be useful if the first party knows as well, but I think that will have to handled OOB
17:51:46 <dsinger> to ifette, yes, exactly
17:51:47 <rigo> I heard only positive remarks so far
17:51:50 <ninjamarnau> ... should we pursue this direction?
17:51:58 <WileyS> Fair - so if the Server continues to receive DNT:1 after receiving a user granted exception, it should keep requesting the exception from the user.
17:52:01 <schunter> q?
17:52:02 <ifette> correct
17:52:05 <ifette> shane, correct
17:52:12 <WileyS> Ian, okay
17:52:13 <dsinger> as long as it's now clear that the server is solely responsible for the user communication, I think this a great improvement
17:52:18 <rigo> shane, that was my assumption
17:52:41 <schunter> q?
17:52:43 <ifette> q-
17:52:47 <rigo> revoking exception is sending DNT;1
17:52:54 <rigo> IMHO
17:52:55 <schunter> ack dwainberg
17:52:56 <WileyS> rigo, yet - we're clear on that now
17:53:03 <ninjamarnau> ifette: Whatever road we follow, we need to make sure the user can revoke his exceptions. And the server needs to know.
17:53:05 <WileyS> Rigo, yep - we're clear on that now
17:53:20 <rigo> WileyS: verify that this is in the text!
17:53:33 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: I lost track on how web-wide exceptions are handled.
17:53:52 <ninjamarnau> schunter: I think both work with this new proposal.
17:54:21 <rigo> dwainberg: which parties could request exception
17:54:36 <rigo> dsinger, if something is prevented to get to the user
17:54:50 <WileyS> +q
17:54:52 <ninjamarnau> rigo, did you take over?
17:54:58 <npdoty> or use an iframe
17:54:59 <rigo> not yet
17:55:06 <schunter> q?
17:55:09 <WileyS> Can we confirm iFrames are fine?
17:55:17 <rigo> Text!!
17:55:21 <BrendanIAB> My understanding of the proposal is that the preference store is moved from client side to server side.
17:55:23 <dsinger> yes, iFrames are fine
17:55:31 <WileyS> There was discussion on the mailing list that this broke the top origin rule.
17:55:36 <BrendanIAB> If that happens, how does the server side re-identify users with preferences?
17:55:36 <rigo> action to do the text?
17:55:36 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find to. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.
17:55:36 <dsriedel> yes, clarification would be fine, a practical example on this
17:55:37 <Chapell> Yes - I think an example would be helpful
17:55:39 <npdoty> BrendanIAB, no, I think this is a proposal specifically for storing it on the client
17:55:42 <ninjamarnau> rigo, please take over scribing. I need to leave. Sorry.
17:55:43 <schunter> q?
17:55:45 <Chapell> @ Wainberg - happy to help draft
17:55:47 <npdoty> scribenick: rigo
17:55:50 <Chris_IAB> how would a 3rd party do the messaging, independent of the 1st party?
17:55:50 <BrendanIAB> Oh.  I thought that was the original design...?
17:55:51 <dsriedel> publisher perspective would be interesting in this aspect
17:55:52 <tlr> zakim, unmute me
17:55:52 <Zakim> Thomas should no longer be muted
17:56:04 <rigo> schunter: debugging text, is not perfect yet
17:56:11 <WileyS> I proposed non-normative text (an example) of the iFrame approach and was told this breaks the top level origin rule.  Need to confirm this is NOT the case.
17:56:14 <dsinger> s/prevented to the user/presented to the user/
17:56:14 <Chapell> @dwainberg - happy to help
17:56:36 <schunter> q?
17:56:41 <npdoty> action: wainberg to draft text confirming use of iframes for requesting exceptions (with chapell)
17:56:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-331 - Draft text confirming use of iframes for requesting exceptions (with chapell) [on David Wainberg - due 2012-11-14].
17:56:44 <tlr> ACTION: dwainberg to review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes
17:56:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-332 - Review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes [on David Wainberg - due 2012-11-14].
17:56:45 <rigo> tlr: dwainberg wants to check the text, mainly that iframes are fine and that the signal back is done by DNT signal
17:56:47 <schunter> q?
17:56:53 <tlr> action-332 due 2012-11-21
17:56:54 <trackbot> ACTION-332 Review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes due date now 2012-11-21
17:57:02 <npdoty> close action-331
17:57:02 <trackbot> ACTION-331 Draft text confirming use of iframes for requesting exceptions (with chapell) closed
17:57:16 <npdoty> action-332: chapell volunteers to help, wileys may also be interested
17:57:16 <trackbot> ACTION-332 Review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes notes added
17:57:21 <rigo> schunter: does somebody object to go with the updated exception proposal?
17:57:21 <schunter> q?
17:57:34 <schunter> q?
17:57:38 <rigo> ... so far haven't seen any objection?
17:57:40 <BrendanIAB> q+
17:57:41 <schunter> ack npdoty
17:57:44 <vincent> q-
17:58:01 <Lmastria> q+
17:58:21 <ifette> That's not a UI requirement
17:58:39 <ifette> the detail can be used for reviewing exceptions later on
17:58:39 <rigo> npdoty: changes are additonal requirements, you must store the exception without checking with the user, the site naming issue
17:58:48 <schunter> q?
17:58:50 <rigo> .. not sure this apporach is preventing that
17:58:50 <tlr> npdoty: we have some stuff that was intended for UI, which seems inconsistent with the UI
17:59:15 <BrendanIAB> q-
17:59:21 <rigo> ifette: the UA can look at exceptions and can revoke them
17:59:25 <ifette> I do apologize, but I have to drop off the call
17:59:34 <Zakim> -bryan
17:59:55 <ifette> Ideally "a website called this method" is equivalent to "a user's preference"
17:59:58 <ifette> If not, that's a problem
18:00:01 <rigo> npdoty: do we say that DNT:0 means only that a site stored an exception?
18:00:03 <ifette> but agree they need to match up somehow in the text
18:00:04 <rigo> q+
18:00:05 <ifette> have to drop,s orry
18:00:05 <dsinger> is that a question in any way related to the question at hand?
18:00:10 <Zakim> -[Google]
18:00:12 <schunter> q?
18:00:49 <schunter> ack WileyS
18:00:54 <tlr> npdoty: consistency between DNT:0 and user exceptions?
18:01:00 <rigo> npdoty: if UA is still responsible for making sure that DNT:0 is still a user preference, than I'm fine with it. If not than not
18:01:16 <dsinger> got it, dnt:0 is now the *server's* responsibility to make sure it reflects the user intention
18:02:00 <rigo> WileyS: provided non-normative text and had feedback that it broke top level same origin rule. Seems supportive in IRC, want a definitive response
18:02:03 <npdoty> npdoty: whether this has a change on DNT:0 semantics is important, that's what makes the difference with whether I think this is a good approach to take. if it's not the UA's responsibility, then servers may need to constantly doublecheck the validity of a dnt:0.
18:02:18 <dwainberg> q?
18:02:19 <rigo> dsinger: it is the ??? can you clarify?? It ought to work
18:02:26 <dwainberg> q+
18:02:43 <rigo> WileyS: if one domain registers exceptions for other domains
18:02:46 <rigo> dsinger: yes
18:02:48 <schunter> ack Lmastria
18:03:06 <rigo> Lmastria: are we opening UI here?
18:03:23 <dsinger> yes, the applicable site is the document-origin of the script, so iFrames should work.  please note if the spec. says something to the contrary
18:03:23 <npdoty> this does add a new requirement that a UA can't provide synchronous UI
18:03:43 <npdoty> but continues to avoid any details about what UI a UA would ever have to show
18:04:02 <dsinger> yes, the site-exception request can be site-wide or name explicit third-parties, and the UA is allowed to 'widen' an explicit list to site-wide (and tell the caller); that remains, as I understand, in this new proposal
18:04:09 <rigo> schunter: it is explicit that UA can do whatever they want. Site has to make sure that it only stores exceptions that it really has. UA can still check
18:04:10 <schunter> q?
18:04:22 <schunter> ack rigo
18:04:24 <Chris_IAB> Lou, I can work with you on that :)
18:04:40 <Zakim> -ninjamarnau
18:05:34 <ifette> ifette has joined #dnt
18:05:50 <npdoty> we never had a requirement that the UA had to pop up a UI
18:05:55 <dsinger> q+
18:06:00 <schunter> q?
18:06:01 <tlr> ack dwainberg
18:06:04 <schunter> ack dwainberg
18:06:09 <rigo> no, but "make sure it is a preference"
18:06:09 <schunter> ack dsinger
18:06:10 <tlr> q+ dwainberg
18:06:48 <dwainberg> dwainberg has left #dnt
18:06:57 <schunter> q?
18:07:02 <rigo> dsinger: general preference is UA and exception is the responsibility of the site. We need more editiing. I don't think we captured that idea
18:07:09 <npdoty> q- dwainberg
18:07:17 <dsinger> to note that the 'general preference' is the responsibility of the UA, and exception-preferences are the responsibility of the sites, to verify that they reflect the user's intent
18:07:18 <dsinger> also that the server has to re-ask that if the exception disappears
18:07:19 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
18:07:43 <Lmastria> my apologies, but i need to drop ... thank you
18:07:43 <dsinger> suggest an action on me to integrate Adrian, Ian, and Nick's texts, into a new document
18:07:47 <npdoty> q+ to repeat my objection in case schunter couldn't hear it
18:07:49 <Zakim> -laurengelman
18:08:09 <schunter> q?
18:08:10 <Zakim> -lmastria
18:08:12 <rigo> schunter: suggest to replace the old exception text with ifette's text. And start working from there
18:08:42 <rigo> npdoty: uncertain about it. I don't think it is a good idea.
18:08:47 <dsinger> q+ to try to answer Nick
18:08:54 <rigo> ... we should not lose what DNT:0 means
18:09:01 <Zakim> + +1.917.318.aavv
18:09:04 <npdoty> ack npdoty
18:09:04 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to repeat my objection in case schunter couldn't hear it
18:09:08 <Zakim> -Chapell
18:09:33 <npdoty> npdoty: wanted to be clear about my concerns, expressed in Amsterdam and again today
18:09:40 <Zakim> +aleecia
18:09:54 <Chapell> zakim, aavv is chapell
18:09:54 <Zakim> +chapell; got it
18:09:56 <npdoty> ... 1) that it's not clear who is responsible for a DNT:0 or what DNT:0 will continue to mean in that case, which I think would be a great loss
18:09:57 <aleecia> Zakim, mute me
18:09:57 <Zakim> aleecia should now be muted
18:10:02 <Walter> q+
18:10:23 <npdoty> ... and 2) that it's dangerous for an API to store this and require that the user cannot be part of the interaction
18:10:35 <schunter> q?
18:10:41 <schunter> ack dsinger
18:10:41 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to try to answer Nick
18:10:42 <dsinger> I think the spec. needs to be clear that a DNT signal that results from a general preference MUST reflect the user's intent as determined by the UA, and that a DNT signal sent as a result of an exception call MUST reflect user intent as determined by the SITE.  It's not tied to DNT:0, but to the origin of the signal.
18:10:42 <rigo> schunter: specific issue: current text that UA must ?? request. Guiding principle is that DNT signal should correspond to the user preference. Should follow that here. UA is responsible to store the right thing. UA can check. But this is the debugging we need
18:10:50 <npdoty> schunter: agree, but think it's just a question of debugging on the text
18:11:26 <rigo> dsinger: answer to npdoty DNT - signal as a preference is responsible for the UA, exception signal is result of site
18:11:27 <schunter> ack Walter
18:11:27 <npdoty> the DNT:0 cancels out the DNT:1 though
18:11:30 <rigo> q+
18:11:41 <Brooks> cylon
18:11:45 <eberkower> LOL
18:11:45 <Zakim> -vinay
18:11:52 <dwainberg> old school cylon
18:11:55 <npdoty> Zakim, drop Walter
18:11:55 <Zakim> Walter is being disconnected
18:11:56 <Zakim> -Walter
18:11:57 <Zakim> -hwest
18:11:59 <schunter> q?
18:12:06 <dsinger> zakim, who is making noise?
18:12:07 <schunter> ack rigo
18:12:08 <Zakim> -Walter.a
18:12:11 <npdoty> Walter, please call back, we couldn't hear you
18:12:16 <npdoty> ack rigo
18:12:18 <Zakim> dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (30%), Thomas (20%)
18:12:22 <schunter> Zakim, mute me
18:12:22 <Zakim> schunter should now be muted
18:12:24 <tlr> zakim, mute me
18:12:24 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
18:12:33 <dsinger> q?
18:12:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:12:38 <schunter> Zakim, unmute me
18:12:38 <Zakim> schunter should no longer be muted
18:12:54 <schunter> q?
18:12:59 <moneill2> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:12:59 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
18:13:38 <rigo> zakim, mute me
18:13:38 <Zakim> Rigo should now be muted
18:13:55 <npdoty> rigo: it's really okay for the DPAs, because the responsibility is with the correct party, the general preference is with the browser and the exception is with the site
18:13:57 <rigo> RRSAgent: please draft minutes
18:13:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-minutes.html rigo
18:14:04 <schunter> q?
18:14:09 <npdoty> q+
18:14:56 <rigo> schunter: want that people respond to Ian's message. New approach has shortcomings. New one has to be even better than the old ones addressing all concerns
18:15:01 <schunter> ack npdoty
18:15:36 <rigo> npdoty: clarify, not prefer new approach. Think that new approach is a dangerous path.
18:15:40 <fielding> npdoty, note that sending DNT:0 instead of DNT:1 is never dangerous for the user -- this is not a security protocol. The only danger would be to a site that caused a false signal to be set and then made improper decisions based on the false signal.
18:16:18 <rigo> schunter: keep the old text as an option? And in one or two weeks you see if your concerns are resolved and in two weeks we see whether it works out
18:16:30 <dsinger> action: singer to work with Ian's text, Adrian's text, and Nick's cleanup to produce a new exception API proposed specification
18:16:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-333 - Work with Ian's text, Adrian's text, and Nick's cleanup to produce a new exception API proposed specification [on David Singer - due 2012-11-14].
18:16:34 <rigo> npdoty: only a couple of things that are controversial
18:16:49 <npdoty> fielding, I meant a dangerous way of deciding and sending signals, not that it's a security risk to send DNT:0
18:16:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:17:01 <Walter> zakim, IPcaller is Walter
18:17:01 <Zakim> +Walter; got it
18:17:15 <tlr> +1 to Nick and David working out the mechanics.
18:17:23 <rigo> Decision: dsinger to include Ian Fette's text into the document and work with Nick to figure which old text should remain
18:17:30 <Zakim> +vinay
18:17:32 <Walter> q+
18:17:34 <npdoty> I'm fine with whatever the editors think is the best editorial method, I just wanted to note the concern
18:17:54 <rigo> q+
18:17:54 <npdoty> I'll also follow up with my concerns on the mailing list
18:17:58 <Zakim> -rachel_thomas
18:18:00 <schunter> q?
18:18:02 <rigo> ack ri
18:18:23 <npdoty> rigo: I think we should open an issue around this
18:18:31 <npdoty> don't we have an issue on the exceptions API?
18:18:52 <tlr> ack thomas
18:19:09 <rigo> but you can't attach actions to actions
18:19:22 <npdoty> issue-144?
18:19:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-144 -- User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests? -- open
18:19:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
18:19:29 <rigo> tlr: let nick and dsinger figure it out
18:19:34 <tlr> zakim, mute me
18:19:34 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
18:19:46 <rigo> schunter: prefer issue. will create issue and attach actions
18:19:50 <schunter> q?
18:19:52 <tlr> we have issue-144 already....
18:19:56 <schunter> ack Walter
18:20:10 <npdoty> schunter, rigo, we have issue 144 already which looks to be very relevant
18:20:41 <rigo> Walter: would prefer exceptions and responses to exceptions to be fiully machine readable
18:20:55 <rigo> ... and with javascript that risks not to work
18:21:19 <rigo> ... unless we could define the javascript in a way that is machine readable
18:21:22 <Walter> machine readable in the sense that it is accountable
18:21:27 <rigo> npdoty: I think it works
18:21:31 <dsinger> walter, I don't understand.  could you write a discussion email of your concerns?
18:21:35 <dwainberg> seems like that would be up to UAs if they want to create some sort of log, right?
18:21:46 <schunter> Zakim, mute me
18:21:46 <Zakim> schunter should now be muted
18:22:24 <rigo> Walter: his and her preferences are stored. It may not be stored ...
18:22:33 <schunter> Zakim, unmute me
18:22:33 <Zakim> schunter should no longer be muted
18:22:36 <Walter> dsinger: I will
18:22:36 <schunter> q?
18:22:36 <rigo> npdoty: Walter, lets take that to the mailing list
18:22:44 <npdoty> npdoty: I think you can still have a UA that acts that way (no exceptions, all exceptions), using JavaScript, follow up on mailing list
18:22:49 <npdoty> Zakim, agenda?
18:22:49 <Zakim> I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
18:22:51 <Zakim> 1. scribe selection [from npdoty]
18:22:51 <Zakim> 2. overdue action items http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from npdoty]
18:22:51 <Zakim> 3. callers identified [from npdoty]
18:22:51 <Zakim> 4. new approach to exceptions [from npdoty]
18:22:51 <Zakim> 5. How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)? [from npdoty]
18:22:51 <Zakim> 6. ISSUE-164: Should the 'same-party' attribute be mandatory? [from npdoty]
18:22:52 <Zakim> 7. ISSUE-137: Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between [from npdoty]
18:22:52 <Zakim> 8. Discuss status of all our remaining open ISSUEs: [from npdoty]
18:22:54 <rigo> zakim, close agendum 4
18:22:54 <Zakim> agendum 4, new approach to exceptions, closed
18:22:55 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:22:55 <Zakim> 1. scribe selection [from npdoty]
18:23:09 <rigo> zakim, take up agendum 5
18:23:09 <Zakim> agendum 5. "How to handle sub-domains (ISSUE-112)?" taken up [from npdoty]
18:23:13 <dsinger> issue-112?
18:23:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-112 -- How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? -- pending review
18:23:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
18:23:15 <dwainberg> q+
18:23:37 <rigo> schunter: one was to use cookie like tools..
18:23:55 <schunter> q?
18:24:03 <rigo> .. this is for site wide exception, domain matiching is broken, with all subdomains listed
18:24:06 <schunter> ack dwainberg
18:24:08 <WileyS> The List is too difficult to manage - use wild cards:  *.yahoo.com
18:24:15 <rigo> ... current approach in the Specification is list of all subdomains
18:24:33 <rigo> dwainberg: clear from past conversation, we need wildcard
18:24:40 <vinay> +1 to Shane.  That and the list changes (like the addition of a new site)
18:24:42 <moneill2> is this about the targets?
18:24:44 <WileyS> For a web site like wordpress, they should NOT use wildcards
18:25:00 <schunter> q?
18:25:03 <WileyS> Matthias, not sure what you mean by "cookie rule"?
18:25:03 <rigo> schunter: does wildcard mean cookie rules or different?
18:25:10 <rigo> ack WileyS
18:25:12 <fielding> they do not imply the same thing
18:25:27 <WileyS> I have proposed text already out there
18:25:29 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
18:25:30 <WileyS> +q
18:25:30 <dsinger> q+
18:25:42 <rigo> schunter: if no action is created, we keep the text
18:25:42 <schunter> ack WileyS
18:26:07 <rigo> WileyS: it is several month old, but covers suffixes and where wild cards are allowed
18:26:10 <rigo> q+
18:26:18 <npdoty> apologies, I'm getting caught up on the conversation from July
18:26:24 <fielding> we could allow *.[www.]?{origin domain}
18:26:24 <dsinger> there are a lot of emails linked to the issue
18:26:29 <rigo> ... don't know where this action was related to
18:26:40 <npdoty> I wasn't aware of a concrete proposal
18:26:43 <schunter> q?
18:26:44 <dsinger> q?
18:26:50 <schunter> ack dsinger
18:27:24 <rigo> dsinger: 2 questions: Can you ask for an exception for a bunch of third parties sites that have wildcards on
18:27:30 <moneill2> Ians version cannot do that
18:27:43 <WileyS> David - yes, that's the one
18:27:43 <rigo> ... 2/ ?? which first parties are we talking about
18:27:45 <npdoty> agree that there's a distinction between expanding 1st party and expanding 3rd party; I noted that here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Aug/0191.html
18:27:50 <schunter> q?
18:27:52 <moneill2> no first party string parameter
18:28:03 <rigo> ack ri
18:28:05 <Zakim> -suegl
18:29:45 <npdoty> rigo: relates to our conversation about transitive permissions in the auction model, and our conversations at least as far back as DC
18:29:52 <npdoty> ... if it makes it easier for implementers, all the better
18:30:00 <npdoty> ... should clarify what we mean when we say it's the same party
18:30:02 <npdoty> q+
18:30:03 <rigo> shane?
18:30:17 <WileyS> Rigo?
18:30:22 <rigo> ack npdoty
18:30:24 <WileyS> Okay - thank you Nick
18:30:34 <WileyS> I thought it was already concrete :-)
18:30:43 <WileyS> Nick can have it
18:30:46 <Zakim> -jchester2
18:31:04 <rigo> npdoty: go back with Shane and take action to clear that
18:31:14 <efelten_> efelten_ has left #dnt
18:31:26 <rigo> npdoty will create the action
18:31:32 <Zakim> -efelten_
18:31:46 <rigo> schunter: will push the remaining issues to the call next week
18:31:48 <npdoty> action: doty to re-update on handling of sub-domains, clarify concrete options (issue-112, perhaps with Shane)
18:31:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-334 - Re-update on handling of sub-domains, clarify concrete options (issue-112, perhaps with Shane) [on Nick Doty - due 2012-11-14].
18:31:50 <schunter> q?
18:31:55 <rigo> schunter: Any other business?
18:31:59 <rigo> nope
18:32:00 <Zakim> -moneill2
18:32:11 <Zakim> -vinay
18:32:13 <Zakim> -dsriedel
18:32:13 <Zakim> -Joanne
18:32:14 <Zakim> -hefferjr
18:32:14 <Zakim> -WileyS
18:32:16 <Zakim> -eberkower
18:32:16 <Zakim> -brooks
18:32:17 <Zakim> -schunter
18:32:18 <Zakim> -BrendanIAB?
18:32:19 <Zakim> -dsinger
18:32:19 <Zakim> -fielding
18:32:19 <rigo> Meeting next week on compliance -- adjourned
18:32:20 <Zakim> -dwainberg
18:32:20 <Zakim> -vincent
18:32:20 <Zakim> -npdoty
18:32:20 <Zakim> -Walter
18:32:22 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
18:32:22 <Zakim> -Thomas
18:32:25 <Zakim> -Rigo
18:32:30 <Zakim> -aleecia
18:32:34 <Zakim> -chapell
18:32:56 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
18:33:14 <npdoty> rrsagent, make logs public
18:33:21 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
18:33:21 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been dsinger, schunter, Rigo, +1.202.478.aaaa, BrendanIAB?, +1.212.380.aabb, +1.408.260.aacc, sidstamm, +49.431.98.aadd, ninjamarnau,
18:33:25 <Zakim> ... +1.813.366.aaee, +1.646.801.aaff, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, +1.510.859.aagg, jchester2, eberkower, npdoty, ifette, Thomas, +1.212.768.aahh, +1.408.349.aaii, WileyS,
18:33:25 <Zakim> ... +1.813.366.aajj, +1.916.641.aakk, +1.425.269.aall, rachel_thomas, lmastria, Joanne, Jonathan_Mayer, moneill2, suegl, hefferjr, +1.949.573.aamm, fielding, +1.917.934.aann,
18:33:29 <Zakim> ... vinay, Walter, +1.678.580.aaoo, +1.425.214.aapp, bryan, brooks, +49.721.83.aaqq, dsriedel, vincent, +385345aarr, hwest, +1.646.666.aass, +1.310.392.aatt, johnsimpson,
18:33:29 <Zakim> ... +1.609.310.aauu, efelten_, Chapell, laurengelman, +1.917.318.aavv, aleecia
18:33:31 <Chris_IAB> npdoty?
18:33:36 <rigo> rrsagent, please draft minutes
18:33:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-minutes.html rigo
18:33:48 <rigo> trackbot, end meeting
18:33:48 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:33:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been dsinger, schunter, Rigo, +1.202.478.aaaa, BrendanIAB?, +1.212.380.aabb, +1.408.260.aacc, sidstamm, +49.431.98.aadd, ninjamarnau,
18:33:52 <Zakim> ... +1.813.366.aaee, +1.646.801.aaff, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, +1.510.859.aagg, jchester2, eberkower, npdoty, ifette, Thomas, +1.212.768.aahh, +1.408.349.aaii, WileyS,
18:33:52 <Zakim> ... +1.813.366.aajj, +1.916.641.aakk, +1.425.269.aall, rachel_thomas, lmastria, Joanne, Jonathan_Mayer, moneill2, suegl, hefferjr, +1.949.573.aamm, fielding, +1.917.934.aann,
18:33:56 <Zakim> ... vinay, Walter, +1.678.580.aaoo, +1.425.214.aapp, bryan, brooks, +49.721.83.aaqq, dsriedel, vincent, +385345aarr, hwest, +1.646.666.aass, +1.310.392.aatt, johnsimpson,
18:33:56 <Zakim> ... +1.609.310.aauu, efelten_, Chapell, laurengelman, +1.917.318.aavv, aleecia
18:33:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:33:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-minutes.html trackbot
18:33:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:33:57 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-actions.rdf :
18:33:57 <RRSAgent> ACTION: wainberg to draft text confirming use of iframes for requesting exceptions (with chapell) [1]
18:33:57 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc#T17-56-41
18:33:57 <RRSAgent> ACTION: dwainberg to review TPE spec to ensure iframes are fine for exception API; if not, propose text changes [2]
18:33:57 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc#T17-56-44
18:33:57 <RRSAgent> ACTION: singer to work with Ian's text, Adrian's text, and Nick's cleanup to produce a new exception API proposed specification [3]
18:33:57 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc#T18-16-30
18:33:57 <RRSAgent> ACTION: doty to re-update on handling of sub-domains, clarify concrete options (issue-112, perhaps with Shane) [4]
18:33:57 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/07-dnt-irc#T18-31-48